Democracy is Nothing Short of Tyranny

Opening my paper this morning was no simple task, as I am still recovering from saluting Lex and killing my liver in solidarity with my brothers and sisters in Wisconsin. Fortunately, the Register Guard apparently has a policy whereby anyone who can string 1000 words together gets to be published in the paper. Nothing helps this cynic's headache like a batshit editorial in the local paper.

Thank Jeebus for Laura Cooper.

Eugene income tax for schools is both unfair and unwise

It starts out promising:

It’s a lesson we all supposedly learned as children: The end can’t justify the means.

I'm not sure if this something we all supposedly learned as children. Don't eat the paste. Play nice with others. Always put your name at the top of the paper because your teacher can't know who wrote it if there's no name at the top of the page. These are the things I learned as a child. I'm not sure if I missed the day my class tackled complex philosophical arguments and came to definite conclusions on them, but then I was sick a lot, so it's completely possible.

But accepting the premise, what does this have to do with anything?

School funding is a noble and necessary end; however, the means chosen for this mission by the Eugene City Council in its income tax proposal are nothing short of tyranny as our forefathers understood, and for that reason the proposal must be defeated.

Tyranny! Nothing short of tyranny!! The kind of tyranny our forefathers faced!!! Do you think she wanted to go with Founding Fathers, but backed off because she realized that no, nothing she is about to write about has anything to do with the founding of this country? I don't know, but "forefathers" it is.

What tyranny do we Eugeneians face Laura Cooper?

As is predictable, proponents provide nothing beyond the same old arguments about taxes “boosting” the local economy without bothering to evaluate the very real impact of additional taxes on an already struggling economy — completely discounting or ignoring the impact on already overburdened local taxpayers.

Okay, but what about the tyranny? You promised me tyranny, dammit.

Nobody disputes the value of a high-quality education. The problem is that few supporters of this proposal can argue much past “it’s for the children” and focus on the horrendous details of the actual proposal.

Ok, horrendous details. Let's have 'em. And I'm still waiting on that tyranny.

Nothing in the proponents’ arguments addresses the prospect of an offset of collected taxes against equalization revenues from the state, addresses the authority of one government jurisdiction to levy taxes for another, or explains how this could possibly be a “temporary” measure when the structural problem that has caused it to occur remains unsolved.

No details. No tyranny.

In Oregon, schools are funded locally through property taxes, but Measure 5, approved by the voters in 1990, placed strict limits on those taxes. Instead, this proposal is a blatant attempt by the city of Eugene to evade Measure 5 and constitutes double taxation on Eugene residents who have already funded schools through their state income taxes.

Double taxation! Heavens. But wait. I fund schools through my local property tax and through my state income taxes?! Holy fuck, I'm already being double taxed. This would be triple taxation! Or quadruple, if you want to throw the feds in the mix. And I do!

Under Oregon’s Constitution, the state Legislature is tasked with funding schools using state taxes. Why not hold our Legislature accountable? Instead, the city simply wants Eugene voters to pay twice — even though the funds raised could well be deducted by the state Legislature in its own equalization distributions (resulting in no net benefit at all).

Given that Measures 66 and 67 were proposed last year as the solution to the very same underfunding problem, what assurances can voters be given that the current proposal will in fact be the real and final solution? Unfortunately, none — precisely because this “solution” is not even within the jurisdiction of its proponents.

This doesn't make a lot of sense. And by that I mean it's not very well written. I get that Cooper doesn't like the tax, but by this point I feel a bit Milhouse over here. When are they going to get to the fireworks factory?

Oh wait, here we go.

Nor is that simply a technical problem. Instead, the jurisdictional issue strikes at the very heart of fairness and accountability, and demonstrates that the proposal is blatantly unconstitutional and irresponsible. This proposal is a fundamental mismatch between taxing authority and spending goals, and the consequence is a basic lack of both due process and equal protection.

I should mention here that Laura Cooper is an attorney, so when she says something is "blatantly unconstitutional" I have every reason to believe that she knows what she's talking about. And while blatantly unconstitutional is not exactly tyranny, I've perked back up. Due process, equal protection. Those are concepts I know. Let's do this thing.

Here’s why: The jurisdiction of the city of Eugene extends only to the contiguous city limits, and thus the tax would affect all people who reside within those city limits and file state tax returns. By contrast, school district boundaries extend well beyond those city limits. What that means is that families that reside within the boundaries of the school district but outside the city limits would be exempted from paying the proposed tax because the city cannot exercise its jurisdiction over them.

Ummm...is that really what "due process" and "equal protection" mean? Some people wouldn't have to pay taxes that they don't get to vote on, but they get the benefits? I'm not sure those words mean what she thinks they mean.

Thus, River Road-area neighbors who live on either side of city boundaries and send children to the very same schools will be treated completely differently with respect to this tax, simply by virtue of their residences being on opposite sides of the city limits.

The class of persons paying the tax bears no rational relationship to the class of persons benefiting from it.

In addition to being blatantly unfair, the proposal is also unwise.

We've walked back "nothing short of tyranny" and "blatantly unconstitutional" to "unfair" and "unwise." Yes, Johnny, there are times when I feel as if I have been cheated. This happens to be one of them.

Laura gives us some more nattering, but to be honest, I've lost interest now that I've realized that there will be no tyranny forthcoming. Read if you must, I only post it to be fair.

School district governing bodies are neither accountable to nor legally subordinated in any way to the city of Eugene, or vice versa. The city cannot dictate to the schools, or vice versa, and thus there is no procedure whereby the city can adequately oversee or monitor accountability for the funds it raises for the schools: it lacks basic authority to acquire information to enable it to determine the appropriate level or use of the taxes it seeks to impose.

As a practical matter, then, the Eugene City Council can provide no assurances that this new funding stream will correct or even address any of the underlying problems for which it is being proposed. In short, it cannot enforceably condition the funds on anything. For example, it cannot address the systemic problems creating the shortfall: It cannot require the school district to cut administrative overhead or renegotiate pension deals with the dollars that it directs toward the schools. Funding with no accountability is a direct ticket to waste, fraud and abuse.

She does finish nice though.

Means matter. What’s next? If the city’s power to levy taxes can be used to fund anything the City Council desires, what is to stop it from collecting taxes for world peace? This proposal must be defeated.

Exactly. If the City Council can propose a 1% income tax with the funds directed to schools, put it on the ballot, and have a majority of citizens vote to pay higher taxes, then where does the madness end?

It ends in tyranny, that's where it ends.

Of Course, the Dean!

RPT Timetable for Tenure-Track and Tenured Faculty. The Provost has the authority to set the specific schedule for RPT decisions for each academic year, except for decisions pertaining to tenure-track Assistant Professors in the second year of their first (three-year) appointment, in which case the authority to set the schedule rests with the dean.

NY Senate chasepack news

the AFT's very own Randi Weingarten in on the list now?

(h/t Reihan Salam sur L'American Scene. Salam also dilly-dallies with Doug Henwood on the Dan La Botz/UAW episode of Behind the News. Is Reihan my fave conservo-blogo? Prolly. It's interesting to hear a conservative intellectual decrying the Right's tax cut fetish, that's for sure. Mebbe I'll send 'em a gratis copy of the solo alb.)

Hillary Never Would Have Done This

In case you all missed it, Obama gave teachers the ol' "Fuck you" yesterday calling for more charter schools, merit-based pay, and making it easier to fire teachers who "aren't up to the job."

Obviously, Obama is pandering to the "independents" who, along with a great many Americans, have bought into the idea that by the very act of giving birth (or completing adoption papers), a person automatically acquires the knowledge to know when a teacher or school is "good" or "bad." Coupled with this intuitive skill is the fact that God conveniently correlates a teacher's crappiness with the performance of little Johnny or Sally in the classroom. When Johnny gets bad grades or does poorly on a test or (and you know I am just joking here) gets sent to the principal's office, a parent is able to know that this is a crappy teacher in action.

Obama's actions are stupid, stupid, stupid. He just threw teachers and teacher's unions under the bus. The Democratic Party now supports merit pay. Oh, I know that he will try to weasel when he's talking directly to the NEA and AFT. He'll try to say that "merit pay" can be based on any number of criteria. He'll try to say it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with testing. "Charter schools" could mean any number of things. "Vouchers" can mean any number of things. The important thing is we "reach out" and move into a "post-partisan" education policy.

Somehow Barack Obama thinks that the collective bargaining rights teachers in America should be modified or curbed or abridged or taken away so that it is "easier" to fire a "bad" teacher. Which is, of course, the subtext here. Obama needs to show that he's independent of those evil, evil teacher's unions who are dragging down education in this country with their insistence on quality at all schools. Their recognition that which kids from what background end up in their classes is not up to them, so paying them based on how these kids do on standardized tests is ludicrous. These crazy teacher's unions that believe that if employers want to fire their workers, there should be a written process as to how that gets done and that process needs to be negotiated.

The Democratic Party candidate for President just bought a whole host of right-wing talking points. And for what? Do you think that the Republicans are now going to stop attack the Democrats as being in the pocket of the teacher's unions? Does Obama think that joining with the Republicans in demonizing teacher's unions will mean that the Republicans will stop demonizing teachers? Does anything in Obama's experience lead him to believe that the Republicans will accept his proposals as fair compromises between two positions? That they will meet him in the middle?

Of course they won't. The goal of the Republican party is to smash public education in the US. Education is the great equalizer. The Republican party does not want equality. Hell, I think that's their official motto. They are not going to suddenly abandon that goal. They are not going to reach across the aisle.

The conversation in about education in America just took a giant leap to the right. Thanks to Barack Obama, who stood up to his allies instead of his enemies.